No President has ever abolished or revoked a national monument proclamation, so the existence or scope of any such authority has
not been tested in courts. However, some legal analyses since at least the 1930s have concluded that the Antiquities Act, by its terms, does not authorize the President to repeal proclamations, and that the President also lacks implied authority to do so. Under this view, once a President has applied the Antiquities Act to protect objects of historic or scientific interest, only Congress can undo that protection. On the other hand, Presidents have deleted acres from national monuments, proclaiming that the deleted acres do not meet the Antiquities Act’s standard that the protected area be the “smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

I would be particularly concerned about the "smallest area" language noted by CRS:

After their establishment by a President, national monuments often have been expanded or reduced over time by subsequent Presidents, or within the same administration. For example, Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico was established by President Woodrow Wilson in 1916 and was later expanded by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower. President John F. Kennedy later issued a proclamation adding 2,882 acres and removing 3,925 other acres from the monument. President Kennedy cited the Antiquities Act as authority, declaring that “it appears that it would be in the public interest to add [the 2,882-acres] to the Bandelier National Monument because they possess unusual scenic character together with geologic and topographic features, the preservation of which would implement the purposes of such monument,” and that “it appears that it would be in the public interest to exclude from the detached Otowi section of the monument approximately 3,925 acres of land containing limited archeological values which have been fully researched and are not needed to complete the interpretive story of the Bandelier National Monument....” As another example, the former Mount Olympus National Monument was diminished in acreage three times after its establishment—including once by nearly half—before it was ultimately redesignated by Congress as a national park in 1938.

Antiquities Act authority to add new acres to national monuments appears analogous to the authority to create monuments in the first place; however, diminishment of national monuments potentially may raise distinct issues. While the Antiquities Act does not expressly address changes in the size of national monuments, it does contain a provision governing monument size: reservations of land for monuments “shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” At least one analyst has contended that the same logic cited above against presidential abolishment of national monuments should also prohibit presidential modification of national monuments to diminish their size. However, the 1938 Attorney General opinion discussed above contemplates reduction of monuments in size pursuant to the “smallest area” language:

While the President from time to time has diminished the area of national monuments established under the Antiquities Act by removing or excluding lands therefrom, under that part of the act which provides that the limits of the monuments “in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected,” it does not follow from his power so to confine that area that he has the power to abolish a monument entirely.

Thus, despite some potential ambiguity in the phrasing of the Antiquities Act, there is precedent for Presidents to reduce the size of national monuments by proclamation. Such actions are presumably based on the determination that the areas to be excluded represent the President’s judgment as to “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” It remains undetermined whether removal of a high enough proportion of a monument’s acreage could be viewed as effectively amounting to an abolishment of the monument.

That reminds me. Someone was posting on another thread about his archeological trips to Bears Ears. One good argument would be to find sites that are in the areas to be eliminated, and point them out as among the "objects to be protected." In the Bandelier case, JFK eliminated parts that had already been studied and did not contribute to the overall narrative. So, more or less, the case has to be made for the value of the areas to be eliminated.

SteveP...I am not concerned about it because it won't happen. It isn't going to happen in the scenic areas of Bear's Ears either. In fact, I doubt if any of you notice any changes in the areas you are likely to frequent.

why is Donald drumpf such a stupid piece of shyt? why is ryan zinke the head of the department of the interior. how many petitions were sent to this oil and mining shill begging him to reconsider the designation of bear's ears? these people, along with that fuk scott Pruitt, are environmental marauders who need to be kicked out on their a55es.

Rob Bishop introduced HR 3990 two months ago. It could pass before the end of year but IT WILL PASS.

The bill rewrites the Antiquities Act to remove any of the legal roadbloacks to elimination of public lands as mentioned in this thread.

One likely big picture pathway is that they will centralize all public federal lands and start reducing them. Generally using as a template the centralization of federal law enforcement they accomplished under Bush with the creation of DHS.

In any case the legal arguements are moot - They own the three branches so they can do whatever they want.

The greatest (and imho the darkest) sea shift in American political history occured when Trump got elected and they retained control of congress: It is naive to pretend otherwise.

The Internationally financed Republicans won kids, unequivocally and irreversibly. Protests mean nothing, other than if you participate you will get flagged into the security monitoring system. (They really, really, really don`t care if you tele . . .)

These interests have been fighting since watergate to get to this point, it is a long complex dynamic but the bottom line is they are not going to soften, cave, relent or yield their power anytime soon.

When I reference Watergate my intention was to highlight that it is in many case the very same actual people who have been pursuing these agenda frameworks.

Fox News, for example, was originally going to be the White House official press network run from the Oval Office - Roger Ailles was on Nixon's commo team.

Donald Trump, in another example, was the funding source who bought the first arms shipments delivered to the (currently still in power) Iraninan Islamic revolutionaries, paying them in arms so that they would not release American hostages while a Democrat was President, thus sabotaging an election and kick starting the Iran Contra scandals..

My point being that in some aspects this is not about historical left vs right ideology. (The public land uses they are radicalizing here, for extraction industry and cattle grazing, are flat-out socialism under their rules.) In other words they are proudly discconnected from any morally or ethically bound historical timelines. This is about obsessions with power, abject greeed and hatred for anyone who has ever stood in their way.

SteveP...I am not concerned about it because it won't happen. It isn't going to happen in the scenic areas of Bear's Ears either. In fact, I doubt if any of you notice any changes in the areas you are likely to frequent.

Well, I was down in the Dead Horse Point area outside of Moab two months ago. The number of rigs there has certainly multiplied. Including some lit up at night interfering with photos I wanted to shoot. I wouldn't frankly be all that surprised to see some of that creep into the Bear's Ears area.

And the Kaiparowits Plateau in GSNM has been a major target for coal mining. That is one of the reasons it was protected in the first place. And you're right, at the current price and technology level for coal mining, it probably won't be developed. But if that's the case, why not leave the monument the way it is instead of promising extractive industry jobs?

In other words they are proudly discconnected from any morally or ethically bound historical timelines. This is about obsessions with power, abject greeed and hatred for anyone who has ever stood in their way.

Fortunately such ideological paradigms ultimately do not succeed; The current manifestation is skating on extremely thin ice.